I don’t know that I agree- but I think the idea is that the re-sellers with the scanner may raise the price of a used book to the point where people feel they aren’t getting enough of a discount for buying used and buy new instead.
I explained this upthread; just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s shitty.
I don’t think that follows. The thrift store could use the same app, but it’s two different markets–people that come through the thrift store and people on the internet. The market price in those two markets is not the same. There are some transactional costs involved in setting up and maintaining an online used book store. The scanners don’t just buy the books, they put in the leg work. Because some of those costs are likely fixed, it’s profitable if you are moving a certain volume but not worth the bother if you are not. So it’s quite possible that a scanner with a circuit of a dozen thrift stores would be able to make a profit doing so, but none of those thrift stores could if they did it in-house. Just finding/hiring someone who knows how the industry works or is willing/able to learn is a huge barrier to entry for a thrift store where no matter what, books are a small part of revenue.
For some arbitragers, it is their job. You may not have noticed, but regular 9-5 jobs aren’t always easy to come by, particularly during the pandemic. Some people hustle for a living. Again, to an extent, I share the frustration with internet-powered arbitragers who scoop up goods like this. But I don’t think they’re necessarily “dickheads”. Also, I’m not sure why someone who collects something you’re not interested in is a “manchild who needs to get a life”. (Full disclosure: I don’t collect toys per se, but I do collect games and some other stuff that many people consider “kids stuff”, so that’s a bit personal for me).
Again, for some people with limited financial means, they really can’t just buy books at retail. Even buying books at “fair market value” at a used bookstore can be prohibitive - if they even have any surviving used book stores that are accessible to them. And of course those arbitragers are also going to have swept through any other thrift stores in the area. As I pointed out upthread, I’ve known a couple of families that built up pretty decent home libraries mostly through thrift stores and library sales. Internet-powered arbitragers are making that increasingly difficult. I don’t think that necessarily makes them dicks. And you’re right, nobody “owes” people on limited budgets underpriced books. But thrift stores used to make it just a little bit easier for those so inclined to maintain a healthy intellectual life for themselves and their kids, and arbitragers scouring thrift stores make it just a bit harder on people in a situation where marginal effects can be really significant.
Things and services don’t have an intrinsic value in currency. I’m not sure why folks rant about a fundamental issue about how a market works. The implications are very very ugly.
I’m thinking that part of the angst against the scanning book buyers is that they really don’t have the first fucking clue about books, or any appreciation for what they are looking at. They just mindlessly scan, scan, scan, looking for a gold nugget amongst the chaff, not even knowing what a gold nugget looks like - just relying on a bit of technology.
On the other hand,there are “pickers” in thrift stores who have to have a very good knowledge of “stuff” in order to see what might be valuable or re-sellable. These folks have to rely on personal knowledge. They might even be collectors themselves, keeping some of the treasures and selling others to finance their hobby. These folks don’t seem to get the same level of opprobrium compared to the book scanners.
In some thrift stores locally, kowledgeable volunteers try to price things accordingly. I know of one, where it’s a continual “game” between the lady who prices jewelry (picking the gold,silver and retro jewelry to put in the “expensive” cabinet) and the gentleman who comes in trying to scoop valuable items that she’s missed.
As an example, my wife found a ceramic pot in a thrift store, stuck in the gardening section with other plant pots. It was made by a local artist. She recognized the style, and the chop mark on the bottom. Sold it for several hundred dollars. Should she have left it there for someone to buy to put their begonias in, rendering it stained, broken and valueless in a few years? She did tell the person at the till when she bought it “this is by local artist XXX” and they did not really care.
If a scalper buys a ticket from the venue and then lists it at a higher price, they haven’t decreased supply at all. In order for a scalper to actually decrease supply, they’d have to buy and then not sell a ticket.
If someone freely buys a ticket from a scalper for the price they’re offering, that’s the definition of a market price. I don’t know how it could be otherwise. If the venue is charging $50 for a ticket and someone is willing to pay $200 to a scalper, the market price is $200, because that’s what someone was willing to pay.
The above post by Euphonius Polemic encapsulates the only reason ‘scanners’ bug me. I’m going by a hereditary gut instinct for antiques and collectables, honed by years of research and experience. They’re just scanning codes. I look down on them.
Last year, at the wonderful comic book store Garden Of Earthly Delights, I picked up a like new copy of Mail Order Mysteries for $10. I bought it only because the subject matter (and the cover with X Ray Specs) appealed to me so much. I later discovered that the book routinely sells for over $100. My honest feeling is, had they known, the store might have charged me $30.
This is basically Luddism, right? Technology evens the playing field between high skilled workers and low skilled workers, and the high skilled workers are displeased with things.
But like most technological advancements, there are net gains. Everyone who wants to buy old books but doesn’t want to spend years cultivating the skills of spotting them or hours sifting through stacks of books has an easier chance of it.
I never thought of it that way. I believe you’re right. I’ll have to ponder on this.
And I don’t necessarily mean it as a pejorative. It sucks when you’ve spent lots of time and effort developing skills at something and then some technology comes along that makes it less valuable. But I think it’s important to realize that this happens with basically any technological advancement.
It’s understandable for a skilled picker to look down on someone who relies on technology. If it were me, I wouldn’t look down, but I think it’s justifiable if that’s your thing.
What’s inexcusable is the getting mad at someone who shops differently from you, thinking they’re a bad or selfish person, doesn’t have a right to be there, and ought to part the aisles and throw rose petals in your path because you are a Superior Consumer. That’s stupid.
But there is an important difference: The person who has put in the time and effort to recognize “gems in the mud” is likely to also have an appreciation for why certain items are more valuable than others. They learn the story behind the object and have a deeper appreciation of what it means. Ask anyone who has developed an “eye” for antiques versus someone who just says “Ooo, this looks old. I’d better grab it.”
P.S. One of the saddest things is an old toy in pristine condition. I recall reading of a dealer who had one toy in the manufacturer’s shipping carton, with the original seals. He had it x-rayed to show the contents!
My point was that if the “outrage” here is because these people are just going in and scooping up underpriced rare/collectible books and then making a lot of money selling them at the market rate, then the problem lies with the thrift store for NOT pricing them at the market rate. They’re literally leaving money on the table for whatever charity they work for when they do that, which IMO is kind of negligent at best.
And there are plenty of used bookstores out there beyond just Amazon (who does have decent used book prices, FYI), and libraries and other resources. Lower income people aren’t relying on underpriced books from thrift stores alone for reading material.
As far as the toys go, having been a child who was into certain toys at one point, it would have been extraordinarily frustrating to me, had some grown man swooped into Toys R’Us when I was in school and bought all the good stuff for himself. I mean, I had limited wherewithal and limited transportation, and for some grownup to go buy the cool GI Joes out from under me would have been frustrating to an amazing extreme. So I’m looking at it from the kids’ perspective. And now as a parent, it would infuriate me as well.
If you want to hustle and do arbitrage, do it somewhere else instead of toy stores, and don’t literally take stuff out from under children. Doesn’t matter to me what your circumstance is. Thrift stores? Fine. Antique sales? Great. But toy stores? That’s kind of low IMO.
Fair enough, but I’m not sure what the OP’s outrage is about then. I mean, if there aren’t that many books that are underpriced, then why are they so put out if someone goes out looking specifically for them, and uses an app to find them?
I’m not seeing the outrage here; certainly nobody owes some third party underpriced books like the OP is implying. Nor are they owed a chance to find something that’s priced way under market. And I can’t blame people who are making a buck by using technology to find that 1 in 200 that is actually worth something and not just another copy of the 1989 Southern Living Cookbook.
IF there’s someone at fault, it’s the store for not pricing them appropriately, but even there, I agree with you that they’re not really staffed or concerned about it. I was mostly pointing out that the book sharks are hardly doing something unfair by using their phones. The stores could do that if they wanted to as well.
I still don’t get the bit about the wardrobe.
I think there was just an activity he enjoyed that has been ruined by a cultural shift.
And one of my points was that providing cheap goods to people with limited means without trying to maximize profits is actually one of the functions of a thrift store. I find the idea that if a thrift doesn’t devote sufficient resources to guarantee that they are maximizing every cent of sales out of every item that comes through their doors that they are “negligent at best” is frankly kind of odd. It just doesn’t match up at all with my personal experience with thrift stores.
And, of course, I never wrote that “lower income people” are relying solely on underpriced books from thrift stores for reading material. What I actually wrote is that I’ve known families that relied on thrift stores and library sales as their primary resource for building a home library, and internet-powered arbitragers make that more difficult, and even if it’s only a marginal difference, at the economic margins, marginal differences can be pretty significant.
Libraries can be great resources, depending on your local community’s library system. But you have to go to the library, and transportation can quite often be a challenge for “lower income people”. And, of course, you’re only borrowing the books, not owning them, and then you have to return them. It can be a lot more of a hassle to maintain a home library that way. And book ownership is a very different thing than a small rotating stock of borrowed books. Especially for inculcating a love of books and learning in a child. You do make a valid point about Amazon, though. Of course, “lower income people” may not have as easy access to the internet and credit or debit cards for Amazon shopping. But, honestly, I don’t have much direct knowledge of how that market operates, so for all I know, maybe Amazon actually has made thrift stores obsolete as a source for cheap books for “lower income people”.
But don’t you also have access to Amazon for buying toys (which does have a decent selection of toys, FYI)? And if an arbitrager can resell them at a profit, doesn’t that just mean that Toys ‘R’ Us was negligent in underpricing them?
It really seems like you think arbitragers are vultures when they interfere with your ability to get the goods you want, and if you have limited wherewithal and transportation, it’s unfair for someone else to scoop up limited supplies of those goods for purposes of arbitrage.
What about kids’ books? Is a grown man who scoops up kids’ books for resale an arbitrager who is just correcting negligent-at-best underpricing, or a manchild who should get a real job?
I live in a literate, medium city where the university plays a significant role. It has always had good used book stores. Still does, though perhaps half as many as olden times.
Collecting books is my biggest weakness. We have a couple amazing thrift stores that only sell books, most in the $3-6 range; unless obviously worth a lot more, in which case a few sets or beautiful/presumably rare volumes may go for $10-30. All the money goes to helping employ the differently abled. It’s a great system and more charities should do this.
Since many do not value books at all, and those who do have often have limited space or frustrated spouses, they get a ton of good books donated every day. Yes, sharks come in on the weekends and buy several boxes worth of books to resell. Many use tech. Doesn’t bother me one bit. That’s still a tough grind, no, in this day and age? The charity gets the same amount of money, sell more stock (they have more donations than free space anyway), and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of great books to go round for those that value them.
If you’re referring to:
Here’s a guess: he was bent all the way over, blocking the aisle, looking at books on a low shelf, with his plumber’s crack showing. Shark pointed it out while telling him to move.